Banner

Banner
Showing posts with label virginia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label virginia. Show all posts

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Free Citizenship Class!

Prince of Peace Lutheran Church is offering a free class to help people study for their naturalization test. 

12 Classes, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. Running March 18 through April 11, 2014 from 7:30 pm to 9:00 pm. 

Prince of Peace Lutheran Church
8304 Old Keene Mill Road
Room 27
Springfield, VA 22152



William J. Kovatch, Jr. 
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com


Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Washington Post Examines Life in Immigration Court

On Monday, February 2, 2014, the Washington Post published an article describing what Immigration Court is like.  In writing the article, Eli Saslo interviewed Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman.  Above is a photo, published by the Washington Post in connection with the article, taken from Judge Burman's perspective in his courtroom.

I have practiced before Judge Burman.  I find him fair, personable and knowledgeable, which is really all you want in any judge.  He also can have a dry sense of humor.  Today, when confirming a woman's address, he noted that she lived on John Marshall Street.  He asked her if she knew who John Marshall was.  When she responded that she didn't, Judge Burman told her that not only was he a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but also an officer who served with General Washington in the Colonial Army.  He then commented that under current US law, this would make him a terrorist (which is true).

Much of my practice is before the Arlington Immigration Court, which I enjoy very much.  If you need representation in an immigration matter, call the number below for an appointment.

William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

Sunday, December 2, 2012

State Courts Limiting the Effect of Padilla v. Kentucky

A little over two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Padilla v. Kentucky, where it held that the failure of criminal defense counsel to advice a non-citizen defendant on the immigration consequences of of accepting a plea bargain amounts to a violation of the Sixth Amendment.  To many at the time, Padilla appeared to be a landmark decision, offering help to permanent residents and other non-citizen convicts seeking to re-open convictions which resulted in surprise immigration consequences.  A number of state courts, however, have attempted to close the door on the ability of non-citizen defendants to use Padilla to re-open old state convictions.  States such as Virginia now prohibit the use of certain extraordinary writs to seek post-conviction relief.  States such as Florida hold that Padilla is not retroactive, and thus cannot be used to attack convictions occurring before the date of the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla.

In this article, I discuss the efforts of state courts to curtail the reach of Padilla.

The Virginia opinion of Morris v. Commonwealth can be found here.

The Florida opinion of Hernandez v. State can be found here.

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the issue of whether Padilla should be applied retroactively, as discussed in this article.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Video Blog: Arlington Immigration Court

Today, my practice takes me to the Arlington Immigration Court, located at 1901 S. Bell Street, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22202.  This is in Crystal City, near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.  Conveniently located about a block south of the Crystal City Metro stop on the Blue and yellow lines.  Parking, however, is difficult and can be expensive.  The best lot is on 20th Street.  Today, for two hours I paid $10 in parking.

In my video blog, I wanted to give you a little bit of a tour of what the outside of the building looks like, and the closest landmark, which is the Marriott across the street.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DREAMers) and Driver's Licenses

Under the President's program, deferred action can provide a person with a promise not to be deported and work authorization.  But, will it allow recipients to get a driver's license.

In general, that issue depends on state law.  Arizona and Michigan have both announced that they will not issue driver's licenses to those who receive deferred action.

What about Virginia?  Section 46.2-328.1 of the Code of Virginia clearly provides that anyone in an approved deferred action status may be issued a driver's license.  This law was on the books long before the President's program.

In August, the Virginia DMV confirmed that it was going to comply with Virginia law and issue driver's licenses to those who receive deferred action under the President's program.

The ACLU is already planning a lawsuit to challenge the decision to deny driver's license to DREAMers in Arizona.  There may be a valid federalism claim.  That is, if the U.S. Government has express authority over immigration issues, and if federal law is the supreme law of the land, then the states cannot do any action to countermand federal action.  We'll watch the Arizona case and see how that plays out.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Deferred Action Scams Are All Too Common

Here's an article from the Modesto Bee, making the same point I made below.  Beware of scams.  Be conscious of price and of what you are getting for your money.  There was another angle I saw out there.  Apparently, some unscrupulous people are having applicants pay them to help fill out the forms and compile the documents, but then using the information for identity theft.

The article also affirms my pricing schedule on deferred action applications.  $500 to help you fill out the form, compile the documents, and engage in reasonable follow-up is about what you should be willing to pay.

If you have any more questions about the deferred action program, or would like to hire me to assist you in the process, then give me a call at (703) 837-8832.

http://www.modbee.com/2012/09/01/2354703/applicants-advised-of-scams-legal.html

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832

DREAMers Beware of Scams When Applying for Deferred Action

DREAMers, thinking of applying for deferred action for childhood arrivals?  Be careful not to be taken.  I am hearing of a number of scams driven more by greed than a desire to help.

The other night, I spoke with a Latina woman who told me that her son had an appointment for an "orientation" on the deferred action program.  He was going to be charged $700 for it.  An "orientation?"  Was that going to include help with filling out the forms, compiling the documents and following up in case something goes wrong?  "No," she told me.  Only an orientation.

I was outraged.  First, this deferred action program is not difficult to understand.  The requirements are out there.  There has been plenty of press on it.  Sure, I think much of the press might be a little misinformed.  But, in my view, that's one reason you talk to a knowledgeable lawyer about it.

Mind you, I am not against making a living.  I know I have to.  But, there's a big difference between making a living and fleecing someone.  Yes, I charge a $100 consultation fee.  But, it is my policy that I credit you for that fee against my total legal fee if you hire me.  The consultation fee is just an understanding that my time is valuable, and if you don't hire me I ought to get some compensation for sharing my knowledge.

But when it comes to "orientations," I am more than happy to come to a group, prayer session, ESL class or the like, and give a talk on the deferred action program (or any other immigration topic for that matter) free of charge.  The idea being that if you are impressed with my knowledge, you will hire me to give you a service to guide you through the process.

In sum, be careful of scams.  And if you want me to come to your group, just call, and we'll arrange a time.  (703) 837-8832.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

DREAMers Asking Schools for Transcripts

Schools across the country are experiencing an increase in transcript request.  In this article, one Minnesota school district has even waived the $15 transcript fee so it an help undocumented aliens get the evidence they need to apply for deferred action for childhood arrivals (DREAMers).

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/09/25/social-issue/deferred-action-young-immigrants-request-school-records/

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

DREAMers Not Entitled to Health Insurance Subsidies

According to the New York Times, those who received deferred action for childhood arrivals (DREAMers) will not be eligible for federal subsidies to buy health insurance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/health/policy/limits-placed-on-immigrants-in-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

Updated Information for DREAMers (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)

USCIS recently updated its Frequently Asked Questions on the deferred action for Childhood Arrivals (DREAMers) program.

The highlights:

You cannot travel outside of the United States after August 15, 2012 and still be considered for deferred action.  Once deferred action is granted, travel abroad is not automatic.  You will need to apply for advance parole before leaving.

You do not need to document each and every day of continued presence.  Affidavits can be used to explain any gaps in formal documentation of your presence.  But, you must submit two or more affidavits from people who have direct, personal knowledge of your presence in the United States.

You may need to provide evidence from your employer.  USCIS promises:  "This information will not be shared with ICE for civil immigration enforcement purposes pursuant to INA section 274A unless there is evidence of egregious violations of criminal statutes or widespread abuses."  Two things to note on this one.  First, this is just a promise, and not law.  Second, USCIS says it will share information with ICE in cases showing that the employer engaged in eggregious violations of the law.

Here is the website:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3a4dbc4b04499310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3a4dbc4b04499310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD



Friday, September 14, 2012

Can Facebook Entries Help Applicants for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DREAMers)?

This Washington Post article hints at a possible creative solution for those who apply for deferred action for childhood arrivals (DREAMers), and who need proof of physical presence: Facebook pages.

Applicants must show five years of physical presence before June 15, 2012, as well as physical presence on June 15, 2012 and at the date of filing.  For some undocumented aliens, there may not be any official records or even mail to prove your physical presence.

Facebook, however, has a function that allows you to "check-in" at certain places.  If you use a mobile device with a GPS locator, Facebook finds where you are, and posts it for you when you check-in.  If you had a habit of "checking-in" over a course of time, and the places where you check-in are in the United States, then perhaps your Facebook account can be proof of physical presence in the United States.

There is no guarantee that the Government will accept such proof. There is an argument that this creates the potential for fraud.  Sure, you could give your cell phone to a friend and have that friend "check-in" for you.  Of course, for this to have been fraud, you would have had to have planned for the Administration to come up with this program years ago, and made a conscious effort to have others "check-in" just to show your physical presence. 

On the other hand, using Facebook as evidence can be a double-edge sword.  First, if you happened to have left the United States and checked in the last five years, the Government will see that.  Also, if you have posted things that you are not proud of, like an urging to violently overthrow some government, or admitting to the elements of some crime even if you were never convicted, then the Government will know that too.  If you are going to use Facebook as evidence, be careful to look through your posts carefully.

Nonetheless, I have been warning people for years that the Government does look at your Facebook accounts.  In marriage visa petitions, for example, if the Government were to see that the intending immigrant actually lists their status as "single," well, that can be a problem.


In the absence of other evidence, though, I have learned that at times you have to be creative.  I have seen Facebook posts used in criminal cases successfully (for example, showing that an injury that is the subject of a criminal charge was actually present in a photo posted on Facebook before the alleged assault happened).  Perhaps it could be used successfully in immigration cases as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/documentation-for-deferred-action-leads-to-confusion-among-illegal-immigrants/2012/09/13/25faa7ce-fb71-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Informational Video on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DREAMers)


Work Permits to DREAMERS Being Distributed

According to the Los Angeles Times, the first of the work permits to those young persons who applied for deferred action under the President's new program (called deferred action for DREAMERS or deferred action for childhood arrivals) are being mailed to those applicants who filed last month.  This turn around time is less than a month so far.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-illegal-immigrants-reprieve-20120912,0,4043540.story

Monday, September 10, 2012

Young DREAMERS Skeptical about Deferred Action

Here's another article, this one from the Wall Street Journal, noting that those who would benefit from the deferred action for DREAMERS program are suspicious. They have concerns about the information they are asked to disclose, and about what will happen after the elections. All are valid concerns I believe. As a result, the number of people applying is much lower than expected.

I do believe that people who are currently in removal proceedings have nothing to lose from applying. After all, the worst has already happened -- they are already in removal/deportation proceedings.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444100404577641961971678728.html

Deferred Action for DREAMERS: No Guarantees Past November

This article from the Huffington Post makes a good point, and one I've been making since June.  Deferred Action for young people, or DREAMERS, is not law.  It is an exercise of discretion.  As such, there is no guarantee that it would continue if a new administration is elected.  In fact, those who are applying now should be aware that if there is a new administration, there is always the possibility that the program will be immediately terminated along with any employment authorizations issued under the program.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/deferred-action-romney-continuation_n_1790997.html

Friday, September 7, 2012

Deferred Action: What About the Parents?

The President's new program promises deferred action and possibly work authorization for certain young people who are in the United States without legal immigration status.  But, the program raises a question.  What about the parents of the young people?

The deferred action program, also known as deferred action for Dreamers, applies to people brought into this country before age 16, who are under 31, and who have been in the United States for five years as of June 15, 2012.  Certainly, among those who qualify will be minor children.  If that is the case, can the Government ignore their parents?

To answer this, it is necessary too understand exactly what this program is.  The deferred action program is not law.  The DREAM Act has not been passed.  The President has no power to grant legal status to the young people who qualify for this program.  This is an exercise of discretion.

One way to think of it is to think of the police officer who observes illegal behavior on his beat.  The police have the authority to arrest anyone they see who commits a crime.  But, quite frankly, if the police were to do that, we would quickly run out of jail space.  Well-trained police also know that sometimes, people break the law for stupid reasons, and they may not be dangerous criminals.  So, the police exercise discretion.  They do not always arrest every single law breaker they come across.

The same concept applies to the immigration system.  Even though there are millions of people who are in violation of immigration law, the Government is not under a duty to enforce the law with respect to everyone.  Quite frankly, if ever undocumented alien were detained and placed in removal/deportation proceedings, we would quickly run of resources.  There are simply not enough immigration judges, ICE attorneys or detention facilities to enforce the immigration laws on every undocumented alien.

So, the Government has to choose against whom it will enforce the law.  That is, it exercises discretion.  Some cases are easy.  Violent criminals, drug dealers and gang bangers are all top priorities for ICE, and well they should be.  But, what about those people who came here simply to try for a better life, and to send money home to their families.  Yes, technically they are breaking the law.  But, if these are peaceful people, who do not break criminal laws, then ICE considers them low priorities.

There are also humanitarian reasons why the Government may not enforce the law.  Think of the mother of a new born baby.  If the baby was born in the United States, the baby is a U.S. citizen.  In my experience, I have found ICE reluctant to institute removal proceedings against the mothers of newborn U.S. citizens.

These concepts all tie back to the current deferred action program.  The President has established a set of criteria to identify people to whom he wants to exercise his discretion not to deport.  But, this does not mean that this is the only set of people who will ever qualify for deferred action.  The Government has the authority to grant deferred action to any person who is in the country without a valid legal status.  Just because you don't meet all of the criteria in this particular program, does not mean that there is no hope.

And that is where the humanitarian reasons come to play.  Let's say you have a child who came to the United States at age three.  Now the child is nine.  That child is enrolled in school, and presently in the United States.  That child can qualify for deferred action.  But, how is that child to be supported?  Who is going to pay for the child's food, housing and medical bills?  The most obvious answer is the child's parents.  It is for this reason, that I believe that the undocumented parents of such children may still qualify for deferred action, but in their own right and not under this particular program.  Quite frankly, if the child is going to apply, the Government will already have the address of the family on file.  Unless we are talking about criminal issues or security problems, I don't see much more of a risk for the parents to request deferred action too.

But how do you apply?  The old guidelines for applying for deferred action held that you applied to the District Director.  And perhaps that is still the right answer.  However, I have made one application for a person ho did not meet all of the qualifications, arguing that the general policy should still protect my client.  I made the application before the new policy procedures were announced.  I got a phone call from USCIS on August 16, telling me that now that the new procedures have been issued, that I should re-apply, but this time using those procedures.  Using that as my guide, I would make the application for the parents through the same procedures, but make sure it is clear that we are not applying under the President's specific guideline.  Rather, we are applying based on the President's inherent authority to grant deferred action to any undocumented alien.  Check in later, and I'll let you know how it works out.

Monday, September 3, 2012

Should I Apply for Deferred Action?

Sure, the President has announced a program to grant deferred action to young people who were brought to the United States before they were 16, are under 30, and have been in the United States for 5 years.  Yes, you can receive work authorization if approved.  But, should you apply?

The big concern is that everyone who affirmatively applies for deferred action will be calling attention to themselves from the Government.  Deferred action is a discretionary program.  That means that the Government is not required to grant it to anyone.  So, if you are denied, there is a chance that the Government will come after you and place you in removal/deportation proceedings.  Is it worth the risk?

First, if you are already in removal/deportation proceedings, or if you have been ordered removed or granted deferred action, then you have nothing to lose.  The worst possible scenario has already happened to you.  You might as well give it a shot and apply.  Just be careful of your time frames, so your time for voluntary departure does not run our before USCIS makes a decision on your case.

There are people who should absolutely not apply.  Do you have any kind of criminal record?  Then do not apply.  You will find that USCIS will deny your application.  Then, on some random morning within a week of the denial, at about 3:30 am, you will find ICE officers, heavily armed, banging on your door to take you into custody.

Do you have an outstanding order of removal or deportation?  Perhaps you crossed the Rio Grande years ago, were placed in proceedings, and released on your own recognizance.  Then, you never made it back to court.  If you have an old order of removal or deportation, then there is a chance that your application will be denied, and like the person with the criminal record, ICE will come banging on your door at 3:30 am to take you in and send you back to your home country.

So, who should apply?  As long as you remember that you are taking a risk, then you might find it beneficial to apply for deferred action.  If it is very important to you that you receive work authorization, then applying for deferred action may make sense.

Also, there is a chance that Congress will eventually pass the DREAM Act, or some other type of immigration reform.  Maybe, just maybe, Congress will give those who applied for deferred action for young people a better place in line if they pass reform.  Of course, this is pure speculation on my part.  But, it is based on some history.  When amnesty last passed, people who had a place in line were given priority over new applicants.  It makes sense to some degree.  When you apply for deferred action, the FBI will do a background check.  If the person passes the background check, then the Government will know already that the person is not a security risk.

But, everyone who applies for deferred action should keep in mind that the program is only as good as the promises of the Administration in power.  If Barrack Obama loses in November, then it is almost a certain thing that the Romney Administration will not renew the program after two years.  In fact, there is no promise that a new administration won't use the information gathered through the deferred action program to round people up and immediately place them in removal proceedings.  Realistically, the chances of that are probably low, as the strain on the Government's resources will be phenomenal.

In sum, if you apply for deferred action, and you are not currently in removal/deportation proceedings, remember that you are taking a risk and that there are no guarantees.

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Deferred Action: Do I Need a Lawyer?

I had a consultation last week with a young woman interested in the new deferred action for young people program.  She admitted that at first, she thought that since the forms all looked straight forward, and since she could find all of the documents USCIS wanted, she thought she could do it all on her own.

But then, she saw one of the questions in the Form I-765WS, or the worksheet for the application for employment authorization.  Specifically, the worksheet asks for her to list her current annual income.  She paused when she got to this question, because by admitting that she has a current annual income, she is admitting that she is working illegally.

I think this is a very savvy point, and one that a lot of immigration lawyers who are writing on this topic are missing.  The grant of deferred action is discretionary.  That means, the Government is by no means obligated to grant it to anyone.  By filling out these forms and sending them to the Government, you are calling attention to yourself.  If the Government denies the application, there is always a possibility that the applicant will be placed in removal/deportation proceedings.

If you put an income down, you are admitting to working illegally.  This is itself a reason for the Government to remove you from the United States.  On the other hand, if you put down zero, when you were in fact working illegally, you have just lied in an attempt to gain an immigration benefit.  Lying on an immigration form can earn you a lifetime ban from ever receiving a visa.  And remember, the FBI is doing a background check on you.

Personally, I would find it hard to believe that any person who was brought here under the age 16, and is currently over 18 has not worked "under the table."  If people are being honest, then the Government will receive thousands of applications with people admitting to illegal work.  Now this is just my opinion, but I would not expect illegal work in and of itself would lead to a denial of deferred action.  But I cannot guarantee that.

The real concern is whether USCIS will ask follow-up questions.  If you admit to an income, then USCIS could follow-up with a Request for Evidence.  That is, the Government may ask how you earn your income.  For one thing, the Government could be looking for people who have used another person's green card, or have claimed to be a U.S. citizen, in order to get work.  So, it is entirely possible that the Government will ask you how you got your job, where you worked, and whether you used a false ID card.  It may also spark the Government to ask whether you have been paying taxes on your income.

This is where things could get treacherous.  Using a false ID to get work is a crime.  Using an ID that you know belongs to someone else is identity theft, which is an aggravated felony and can earn you a lifetime ban from receiving immigration benefits.  Claiming to be a U.S. citizen is also a kiss of death for any future immigration benefits.

But, you would not be the only person to be put at risk by responding to these types of questions.  USCIS can ask for details of your job, including your employer.  If your employer has hired you knowing your immigration status, then the employer has violated the law and can face civil and criminal penalties.  Sure, if your job has been with a local fast food restaurant, you may not care too much for your employer's liability.  But, what if you worked for your uncle in his construction business?  Do you really want to risk having your uncle found to be in violation of U.S. employment law?

So you see, even answering a simple question on an immigration form can have real, adverse consequences.  If you are going to apply for deferred action, you need to know the full risk you are taking.  The best person to explain the risks is an experienced immigration lawyer.  Even then, many experienced immigration lawyers are missing some of the possible pitfalls present in this Government program.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DREAMers)

The procedures for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DREAMers) who were brought in before age 16 are here. The requirements are:

You may request consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals if you:

1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
2. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
5. Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or your lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Applications are made on Form I-821D, I-765 and I-765WS. The filing fee is $465.

Any applicant should be aware that you are bringing yourself to USCIS's attention. If USCIS decides that you do no qualify, then it is entirely possible that you will be placed in removal proceedings. USCIS promises that only those with criminal issues will be referred to ICE. But, that is only a policy, and can be changed, especially if there is a new administration.

I am happy to assist in completing the application, to enter my appearance with USCIS and to do reasonable follow-up for a fee of $500. If an interview is requested, there would be an additional attorney's fee of $500. If there is a need to respond to a Request for Evidence or a Notice of Intent to Deny, or a desire to file a Motion for Reconsideration, then I would charge my hourly rate of $250.

The procedures can be found at this website:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f2ef2f19470f7310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f2ef2f19470f7310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832